Collaborative hierarchical document development and review system

ABSTRACT

A computer software product for allowing simultaneous multi-level collaboration, including in real time between an author and a group of reviewers invited by the author to comment on a document stored in a computer file. The computer software enables each reviewer to view the document and make changes thereto which are stored in a secondary data file without modifying the contents of the original document. The author receives and views the secondary data files from the reviewers and selectively incorporates the changes into the document. Each reviewer may invite an unlimited number of sub-reviewers to review the document, the comments of each sub-reviewer similarly being stored in a secondary data file wherein only the author may edit the document directly.

This is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/754,375, filedJun. 29, 2015, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No.12/766,321, filed Apr. 23, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,105,007, which is acontinuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/285,910, now U.S. Pat. No.7,818,678, filed Oct. 31, 2002, all of which are incorporated herein byreference in their entireties.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to a computer-based documentdevelopment and review system, and more particularly to a computerproduct which allows document collaboration among a plurality ofcomputer users over a network.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Prior to the widespread introduction of computers, documentcollaboration was typically accomplished by distributing a paper copy ofa document sequentially, or by distributing multiple copiessimultaneously, to a number of reviewers for comment.

In sequential review, as shown in FIG. 1, a document owner 10 designatesa number of reviewers 20 to review a document. Each reviewer 20 makescomments, often in the form of notes written by hand, directly on asingle paper copy of the document, passing the document along to thenext reviewer when finished. The result is a single document indicatingall of the proposed changes. The most obvious drawback of this editingmethod is that it is inherently time-consuming, especially when thenumber of reviewers is large. Furthermore, although it may be desirableto ascertain the author of a particular comment, the fact that all thecomments are contained on the same document complicates suchidentification. Finally, it may not be desirable to permit laterreviewers to read comments made by those who came earlier.

Simultaneous review, as shown in FIG. 2, by its nature is lesstime-consuming than sequential review, and results in a plurality ofedited copies of a document, each prepared by a particular reviewer 20.However, the collaborative process is not complete until a centralreviewer aggregates the comments of each individual reviewer into acomplete document. Often, the owner 10 performs this function. Thus, theowner 10 must resolve conflicts among the comments of the severalreviewers which might not have occurred had some of the reviewers beenable to read the comments of others.

Connecting personal computers to communication networks has eliminatedthe need for distribution of paper copies, and for the notation ofcomments on documents by hand. Unfortunately, however, the collaborativeprocess generally continues to be patterned after the work flow modelsdescribed above. For example, Microsoft Word®, by Microsoft Corporation,of Redmond, Wash. provides revision tracking tools such as “redlining”which enable a reviewer to insert revisions as comments within adocument in much the same way as comments are indicated on a manuallymarked-up paper copy of a document.

Although Microsoft Word® and other word processing software allows theauthor of a document to send a copy to many reviewers via e-mail or overthe web or intranets, and each reviewer can make and track changes, theredlined document may only represent the changes suggested by one ormore of several reviewers. When a large number of reviewers are involvedin the collaboration, it becomes difficult to combine each reviewer'scomments into a finished document. Extensive merging and/or cutting andpasting is necessary before the author even has a single documentcontaining all the comments suggested by the reviewers.

There are some products, such as Workshare Synergy® by WorkshareTechnology of London, England that add collaboration features toMicrosoft Word by changing the view and the process of compiling andintegrating proposed changes from multiple individuals into a singledocument. However, Synergy is an applet, or software that is dependententirely upon an application such as Microsoft Word® for itsfunctionality. Furthermore, in Workshare Synergy®, the comments aresorted by reviewer with separate tabs denoting each reviewer's comments.This is problematic for multi-user collaborations because the mostcommon workflow for authors is to review all the comments on asection-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Still further, thedocument and the reviewers' comments cannot be reviewed side-by-side.

An additional drawback of current collaboration products will be notedby the author who, having received the comments of the reviewers, wishesto accept one or more of the suggested changes. In order to do so, theauthor must “scroll through” every comment made by every reviewer andelect to accept or reject the suggestions one by one. Thus, an authorwishing to accept even one of 100 changes suggested must reject theremaining 99.

Thus, current computer-based collaboration products closely follow thepaper-based collaboration methods upon which they are based, directlyincorporating features of paper-based collaboration that are notnecessary to or appropriate for the electronic transfer of documents.Particularly, the current collaboration products emulate the practice ofdirectly “marking up” a paper copy of the document by its reviewers.Although this has proven to be the most efficient way to conduct manualdocument collaboration, it does not translate well into a method forelectronic document collaboration.

Therefore, a need exists for a computer-based document collaborationsystem in the form of stand-alone software that will allow a pluralityof reviewers to simultaneously review a single document on a pluralityof computers and submit comments on the document wherein the comments ofeach reviewer are stored and indexed separately from the document andfrom those of other reviewers and forwarded to an editor or authorwithout modifying the underlying document.

A further need exists for a computer-based document collaboration systemthat displays the comments of the plurality of reviewers in a firstwindow on a single screen at the same time as it displays the documentin a second window, allowing the editor or author to scroll throughportions of the document and view the identity of the reviewer and thecomments suggested on that portion of the document. It is desirable forsuch a system to enable the author or editor to selectively incorporatethe comments of each reviewer into the document. It is furtherdesirable, but not essential to provide a “thin client” in the form ofsoftware that can be sent with or separately from the document to anauthor, editor or reviewer to enable the display of the document andcomments, and to allow the selective incorporation of comments by anauthor or editor independent of other word-processing software.

A still further need exists for a computer-based document collaborationsystem having a hierarchical structure wherein an author or editor may,for example, submit a document to a plurality of first-level reviewershierarchically subordinate to the author or editor. Each first-levelreviewer may in turn submit the document to a line of hierarchicallysubordinate second-level reviewers. It is desirable for an unlimitednumber of lines of reviewers of a document to be accommodated withinunlimited hierarchical levels. A set of rules associated with thehierarchy defines which hierarchical rank and line may review commentsgenerated by those in other ranks within the same line.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the invention, a computer-based documentcollaboration system for managing the input of a plurality of reviewersis provided. A master data file contains a document which may be inanyone of a number of known document formats such as HTML, TXT, DOC,RTF, DOT, etc. stored on at least one computer for display on one ormore display devices. A secondary data file is associated with thedocument and with at least one of the reviewers. When the reviewermodifies the document displayed on the display device, the computercaptures the modifications and stores them in the secondary data file.It is desirable that the secondary data file include an indexreferencing the portion of the document in which the modification wasmade and the contents of the modification, for example, on aparagraph-by-paragraph basis. In further accordance with this aspect ofthe invention, a plurality of computers may be connected over a networkso that the master data file can be viewed on several computerssimultaneously. Each of the computers thus connected to the network arepreferably provided with an editing means, allowing a reviewer stationedat one of the networked computers to make what appear to be ordinarymodifications to the document which are instead stored to the secondarydata file associated with that reviewer. The secondary data file canthen be sent, for example, to the author of the document.

In accordance with a further aspect of the invention a computer-baseddocument collaboration system for managing the input of a plurality ofreviewers is provided wherein, for example, the author of a documentinvites a number of users to act as reviewers and receives a secondarydata file from one or more of the reviewers. At least one computer isprovided with a graphical user interface which divides its display intoat least a first portion in which the document is displayed, and asecond portion in which the contents of the secondary file aredisplayed. Ideally, each of the paragraphs, that has generated a commentor modification from anyone or multiple reviewers, is demarcated with acolor object or glyph to allow easy spotting of where the modificationsare. Additionally, as the author scrolls through the document in thefirst portion of the graphical user interface, the contents of theindexed modifications are displayed in the second portion of thedisplay. The author may then selectively accept the modifications intothe document. Thus, the author or editor of a document, having sent thedocument, for example, over a network to several reviewers and havingreceived a secondary document associated with at least one of thereviewers, may review all the proposed changes to the documentsimultaneously on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.

In accordance with a still further aspect of the invention, acomputer-based document collaboration system for managing the input of aplurality of reviewers is provided having a hierarchical structurewherein ideally the author or editor of a document is designated as thedocument “owner”, and is assigned the highest rank. The document islocked within owner's master data file and ideally the owner is the onlyone who may modify the contents of the master data file directly. Theowner may invite a number of reviewers, these reviewers known forexample as “level 1” reviewers, having a rank below that of the owner.In accordance with this aspect of the invention, each level 1 reviewermay view the document and make modifications which are recorded in thelevel 1 reviewer's secondary file without modifying the contents of themaster data file. Additionally, each level 1 reviewer may inviteadditional reviewers having a rank below that of the level 1 reviewer,e.g. “level 2” reviewer. The level 2 reviewer may also makemodifications to the document that are stored in that reviewer'ssecondary file without modifying the contents of the master data file.Thus, in accordance with this aspect of the invention, an unlimitednumber of hierarchical levels are created wherein review of the documentcontained in the master data file can take place simultaneously withoutdirectly editing the document.

In accordance with a still further aspect of the invention, acomputer-based document collaboration system for managing the input of aplurality of reviewers is provided wherein the owner or any reviewer maydesignate an assistant to take over the rights of the respective owneror reviewer to accept or suggest changes to the document.

In accordance with a still further aspect of the invention, acomputer-based document collaboration system for managing the input of aplurality of reviewers is provided wherein the owner may designate onlyselect reviewers to provide input on specifically designated portions ofthe document.

In accordance with a still further aspect of the invention, a computerbased document collaboration system for managing the input of aplurality of reviewers is provided wherein data management may becarried out entirely by a central database system.

In accordance with a still further aspect of the invention, acomputer-based document collaboration system for managing the input of aplurality of reviewers is provided having a “thin client” whichcomprises sufficient computer code to enable a reviewer to view thecontents of a master data file and record modifications in a secondarydata file.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing aspects and many of the attendant advantages of thisinvention will become more readily appreciated as the same becomesbetter understood by reference to the following detailed description,when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a prior art method of documentcollaboration.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a second prior art method ofdocument collaboration.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating the document review system of thepresent invention.

FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating the hierarchical structure of thepresent invention.

FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the document review system of thepresent invention.

FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating the preferred data flow of an aspectof the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a plan view of a computer display showing an aspect of thepresent invention.

FIG. 8 is a plan view of a computer display showing an aspect of thepresent invention.

FIG. 9 is a chart illustrating an aspect of the present invention.

FIG. 10 is a plan view of a computer display showing an aspect of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention provides a computer-based document collaborationsystem. As shown in FIG. 3, an embodiment of the document collaborationsystem of the present invention is shown having a central database 102connected to a network 110 of conventional personal computers orterminals 120. Such computer networks are well known in the art andtypically but not necessarily comprise computers having a processingunit, a system memory, an input device, a display device and a systembus that couples these components to the processing unit. Additionally,a network controller is connected to the system bus for permitting thecomputer to communicate over a network. When used in a Local AreaNetwork (LAN) environment, each personal computer 120 is connected tothe local network 110 through such a network controller which may beconfigured to exchange information in one or more well knowncommunication protocols such as TCP/IP. Alternatively, the computers innetwork 110 may be connected across a Wide Area Network (WAN) or over aVirtual Private Network (VPN) or other networks known in the art inwhich case other means such as a modem may be used for the purpose ofestablishing connections over the internet among personal computers 120.

Central database 102 is shown connected to network 110 and may be one ofa number of well known database systems such as DB2 of IBM Corporation,Annonk, N.Y., Oracle® of Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores Calif., SQLServer from Microsoft Corp., or Borland Paradox® of Borland SoftwareCorporation, Scotts Valley, Calif. As shown below, the method and systemof the present invention enables a plurality of users linked overnetwork 110 to collaborate on a document simultaneously, the systembeing distributed between software components implemented in centraldatabase 102 and on personal computers 120. Preferably, as described ingreater detail below, each of personal computers 120 is provided withsome database capabilities, requiring the installation of some databasecomponents redundant to those of central database 102 on some or all ofpersonal computers 120. Alternatively, it is possible to implement thesystem of the present invention without installing any softwarecomponents on personal computers 120. In the latter case, personalcomputers 120 could function as or be replaced by terminals having onlya display and suitable input/output capability.

The method and system of document collaboration is illustrated in FIG. 3wherein user 130 is shown at step 1 having generated version 1.0 of adocument 122. As the author of the document, user 130 is considered the“owner” with respect to document 122 which is stored in central database102 and locked. Moving clockwise to step 2, the locked document 122becomes the master data file 124 which preferably may be modified onlyby owner 130.

Next, as shown in step 3, the owner 130 then designates a number ofusers to whom master data file 124 is to be distributed or allowedaccess to by inviting those users to become reviewers of the document.For purposes of the present invention, a reviewer is an individual useror group of individual users who provide input on a document in the formof suggested changes which may include, but are not limited to, specificcomments or edits to specific portions of the document. The owner 130provides a list of reviewers to the central database 102 as distributionlist 126. As shown, the owner 130 may invite reviewers, for example 202,204 and 206 as reviewers of document 122. Each of reviewers 202, 204 and206 are users preferably having personal computers 120 connected tonetwork 110. In step 4, central database 102 then generates andpreferably sends a secondary data file 128 to each reviewer designatedin distribution list 126 and provides to each a copy of document 122 aslocked master data file 124.

As shown in greater detail in FIG. 4, a hierarchical relationship existsbetween owner 130 and reviewers 202, 204 and 206. Because they are onelevel below owner 130, reviewers 202, 204 and 206 are considered “level1” or “L1” reviewers. An unlimited number of reviewers can exist at eachlevel, and may be designated sequentially as reviewer 1, reviewer 2,reviewer 3, etc. or “R1, R2, R3 . . . ”. Thus, each reviewer can beuniquely identified by the server based on the reviewer's level andorder. As shown in FIG. 4, reviewer 202 is identified as “L1RI” which isa unique designation representing the reviewer's rank of level 1 andorder as reviewer 1. Similarly, reviewer 204 is identified as “L1R2”,and reviewer 206 is identified as “L1R3”. Subsequent level 1 reviewerswould be identified as “L1R4”, “L1R5”, etc. Although any identificationscheme may be used in place of that shown in FIG. 4, the uniqueidentification of each reviewer invited by owner 130 by the centraldatabase 102 is critical as described in detail below.

Corresponding to the hierarchy shown in FIG. 4, each secondary data file128 (FIG. 3) is uniquely associated with one of the reviewers invited byowner 130 and is also associated with master data file 124. Althoughdifferent hierarchies may be defined from that shown in FIG. 4, it iscritical that each secondary data file have a unique association withonly one reviewer, and that each reviewer's place on the hierarchy beascertainable by the system. In the event that only one secondary datafile is assigned to more than one individual, those individuals will beconsidered to be a single reviewer for purposes of the system of thepresent invention. Furthermore, although owner 130 may be recognized asthe owner of document 122, owner 130 may simultaneously serve and berecognized by the system of the present invention as a reviewer of adifferent document, the author of that document having designated owner130 by invitation to serve as reviewer.

Unlike the master data file 124 which contains a copy of document 122,the secondary data files contain no data when they are first received,by the designated reviewers 202, 204 and 206 in step 4 of FIG. 3, orcreated by the local or central database. To review the document, asshown in step 5 of FIG. 3, the reviewers may each view contents ofmaster data file 124 and secondary data file 128 on a single displaysimultaneously, for example in separate side-by-side windows. An exampleof such a display 70 is shown in FIG. 7, wherein the text of a documentcontained in the master data file is displayed in editing window 72 andthe contents of the secondary data file are shown in comment window 74.

A reviewer such as 202 who, as discussed above, has been assigned theunique hierarchical designation L1R1 may scroll through the document inediting window 72 and make changes which are recorded in the secondarydata file and displayed in comment window 74 as shown in FIG. 8. Changesmade in the text in editing window 72 appear as a suggestion 76 incomment window 74 along with the identity of the reviewer and the timeof the change. The reviewer may also make comments 78 directly into thecomment window such as an explanation or description of the comment.Alternatively, the document editing window itself can show the text ofdocument 122 and any changes made thereto by the individual reviewer. Inthis case, window 74 showing the contents of the secondary data file canbe toggled on or off by the reviewer. However, whether or not thereviewer's display shows the changes in the editing window 72, thecontents of the document 122 are not modified. As discussed above, thetext shown in editing window 72 is merely a copy of that found in masterdata file 124 which has been locked in step 2 of FIG. 3 to prevent themodification thereof by any reviewer.

The reviewers' suggested changes are captured and indexed in thesecondary data file. As shown in step 5 of FIG. 3, each of reviewers202, 204 and 206 populates secondary data files 128 a, 128 b and 128 crespectively with suggested changes to document 122. For example, asshown in FIG. 9, the contents of an example of a secondary data file areshown wherein changes suggested by a reviewer such as reviewer 202(identified as L1R1) have been captured in secondary data file 128 a andindexed to the paragraphs in document 122 to which the suggested changesapply. Specifically, the file contains the identity 92 of the reviewer,the name 94 of the document being edited (identified as Doc1.txt) and atable 96 containing an indexed list of suggested changes made by aspecific reviewer such as reviewer 202. Although many approaches tostoring data such as that shown in FIG. 9 are known in the art, it iscritical that the secondary data file 128 be associated with at leastone document, such as document 122 and at least one reviewer, such asreviewer 202.

In the preferred embodiment, sufficient database capabilities areprovided by software installed on the personal computers 120 used byreviewers 202, 204 and 206 such as Borland Paradox® to carry out thefunction of capturing the input made by each reviewer into the documentediting window and copying that input to the respective secondary datafiles 128. This embodiment has the advantage of allowing each reviewerto populate a secondary file with suggested changes independently oftheir connection to the central database 102. Thus, in the event thatthe network connection between a particular personal computer 120 andthe central database 102 is temporarily unavailable or interrupted, areviewer could continue to add suggested changes to their secondary fileto be synchronized with central database 102 when the network connectionhas been restored.

Further, the local database software necessary to enable any personalcomputer 120 connected to the network to carry out the functions ofdisplaying and capturing suggested changes can be provided, for exampleby central database 102, as an attachment to master data file 124 orsecondary data file 128. This software, or “thin client” 125 is shown inFIG. 3 as distributed to reviewers with master data file 124 andsecondary data file 128 in step 4 in the event that any reviewers suchas 202, 204 and 206 do not have the local database software installed onthe personal computer 120 that the reviewer is using. However, the thinclient 125 can be distributed to the reviewers at any point prior tostep 5 wherein the editing actually takes place. Alternately, databasecapability similar to that provided by thin client 125 may bepre-installed on personal computers 120.

In an alternate embodiment, all database functions related to thecapture of suggested changes are carried out by the central database102. In this configuration, local database software is not required bythe system of the present invention to enable a reviewer to populate asecondary data file, thus no software installation or thin client 125 isnecessary. This provides the advantage of a significantly reducedcomputational capability on the part of personal computers 120. Fullyimplemented, the central database of such a system can take on the roleof an application service provider wherein even the functions related tothe display of the contents of the master data file and secondary datafile can be centralized. This embodiment, however, requires thatpersonal computers 120 remain connected to the central database, as by anetwork connection, at all times in order to function.

As shown in FIG. 3, step 5 is completed after each of the reviewers 202,204 and 206 designated by owner 130 have completed their review ofdocument 122 contained in master data file 124, their respectivesecondary data files 128 a, 128 b and 128 c are sent to central database102. Although it is well known in the art to send data to a database viaa data file, it is critical that the process for generating thesecondary data files not alter the contents of the master data file 124.

In step 6, central database 102 integrates the secondary data files fromeach of the reviewers, generating integrated data file 140 which isreturned to owner 130. Owner 130 preferably views document 122 and thecomments of reviewers 202, 204 and 206 on a single displaysimultaneously. FIG. 10 shows display 70 having editing window 72wherein document 122 is displayed, and comment window 74 wherein thecomments 76 of reviewers 202 (L1R1), 204 (L1R2) and 206 (L1R3) aredisplayed. Ideally, each of the paragraphs, that has generated a commentor modification from anyone or multiple reviewers, is demarcated with acolor object or glyph 75 to allow easy spotting of where themodifications are. Owner 130 accepts or rejects the changes from all thereviewers and free edits the document 122. Alternately, as described indetail below, in lieu of generating an integrated data file 140, centraldatabase 102 may virtually integrate the contents of the secondary datafiles 128 a, 128 b and 128 c by displaying the suggested changes ofmultiple reviewers by reference to the index.

At the completion of step 6 of FIG. 3, a new version of document 122 isthen published, at which time the review process may begin again at step1 followed by the creation of a new master data file 124 containing therevised document 122 a and selection by owner 130 of a distribution listidentifying the same or different reviewers.

Although FIG. 3 illustrates the system of the present invention asapplied to a single level of reviewers subordinate to owner 130, it ispossible to carry out the review process shown in FIG. 3 throughmultiple levels of reviewers. As shown in FIG. 5, the process shown inFIG. 3 can be expanded such that the reviewers 202, 204 and 206 asdesignated by owner 130, upon receiving a copy of the master data fileand respective secondary data file may themselves designate a number ofsubordinate reviewers to which the document is to be distributed forcomment.

With reference to FIG. 5, it can be seen that steps 1 through 6 are thesame as those disclosed in the embodiment of FIG. 3. Specifically, instep 1 owner 130 creates a document 122 which is stored by centraldatabase 102 in master data file 124 and locked in step 2. In step 3,owner 130 designates a distribution list 126 identifying a plurality ofreviewers 202, 204 and 206. In step 4, each of the reviewers designatedby owner 130 receives a copy of master data file 124 containing document122 and a unique secondary data file 128 associated with document 122and the reviewer. In step 5, reviewers 202, 204 and 208 return theirrespective secondary data files 128 a, 128 b and 128 c containingsuggested changes to central database 102 which in step 6 are integratedand viewed by owner 130 who accepts or rejects the suggested changes,free-editing the document 122.

However, the embodiment of FIG. 5 differs from that shown in FIG. 3 inthat after each of the reviewers 202, 204 and 206 invited to reviewdocument 122 by owner 130 have received master data file 124 andsecondary data file 128 in step 4, each of the reviewers may designateby invitation their own distribution list of reviewers. This step, shownin FIG. 5 as step 3 a wherein reviewer 202 designates a distributionlist 200 inviting reviewers 208, 210 and 212, is similar to step 3 withthe result that the relationship between first level reviewer 202 andsecond level reviewers 208, 210 and 212 is similar to the relationshipbetween owner 130 and first level reviewer 202. Therefore, in a similarmanner to the distribution of files shown in step 4, central database102 distributes in step 4 a of FIG. 5 a copy of master data file 124 anda unique secondary data file to each of reviewers 208, 210 and 212designated, for example by reviewer 202. Any additional reviewersdesignated by reviewers 204 and 206 would similarly receive master datafile 124 and a unique secondary file 128 in step 4 a.

It is also possible that between steps 4 and 4 a, one or more of thesecond level reviewers 202, 204 or 206 may populate their respectivesecondary data files with suggested changes prior to inviting a secondlevel of reviewers such as 208, 210 and 212 to comment thereon. Forexample, the master data file sent to reviewers 208, 210 and 212 couldbe either master data file 124 containing the same document 122 reviewedby reviewer 202, or the file distributed in step 4 a could be masterdata file 124 a containing document 122 plus the changes suggested byreviewer 202. If reviewer 202's changes are sent to reviewers 208, 210and 212 in step 4 a, they would preferably be viewable by thosereviewers through integration by central database 102 as though thechanges were part of the original document. However, such integrationwould be virtual as changes to document 122 are preferably permittedonly by owner 130.

The next step in FIG. 5, step 5 a is similar to step 5 in that each ofthe level 2 reviewers 208, 210 and 212 submit their respective secondarydata files 128 d, 128 e and 128 f to the central database. Thereafter,in step 6 a, the secondary data files of the level 2 reviewers areintegrated by central database 102 into an integrated file 150 which isviewed by the designating level 1 reviewer. Preferably, only reviewer202, for example, may view the changes suggested by reviewers 208, 210and 212. Conversely, only reviewers 204 and 206 may view the comments oftheir respectively designated reviewers, if any. Alternately, reviewer202 may allow reviewers 208, 210 and 212 to view each other's comments.As discussed in greater detail below, this step is similar to step 6with the exception that level 1 reviewers such as 202 may not edit thedocument 122 directly. Instead, any changes accepted or suggested, forexample, by reviewer 202 are merely incorporated into reviewer 202'ssecondary data file without modifying the contents of master data file124.

The process disclosed in FIG. 5 allows for an unlimited number ofsubordinate reviewers at each level as well as an unlimited number oflevels of sub-distribution. Ideally, the sub-distribution of documentstakes place hierarchically. With particular reference to FIG. 4 thehierarchy among reviewers in a multiple levels can be shown in greaterdetail.

As discussed above, owner 130 has designated a first level, Level 1 orL1 of subordinate reviewers 202, 204 and 206, (R1, R2 and R3respectively) to review a document, shown in FIG. 3 as 122. Thedesignation of reviewers of document 122 as master data file 124 isshown by the arrows linking the owners and the multiple levels ofreviewers. As discussed above, each reviewer is identified by a uniquedesignation associated with the secondary file allocated to thatreviewer by central database 102 (FIG. 3) shown as a concatenation ofthe rank L1 of the reviewer and the reviewer's order within that levelR1, R2 and R3. In turn, each reviewer 202, 204 and 206 may designate asecond level, Level 2 or L2 of subordinate reviewers. For example,reviewer 202 has designated reviewers 208, 210 and 212. Similarly to thereviewers at Level 1, the Level 2 reviewers each receive a copy ofmaster data file 124 and have a unique secondary data file allocated bycentral database 102, and associated with one particular revieweridentified in FIG. 4 as a concatenation of the designating reviewer's(202's) identification, L1R1, which forms the prefix of reviewer 208'shierarchical identity, and 208's order within in L2 as R1. Hence,reviewer 208 can be uniquely identified as L1 R1-L2R1, as can thesecondary data file associated with reviewer 208.

The convention of identifying the reviewer's secondary file byconcatenating the identity of the designating reviewer with that of thedesignated reviewer is shown in FIG. 4 carried out to Level 4. As wouldbe obvious to one skilled in the art, this process can be carried outindefinitely resulting in a hierarchy as broad and deep as the size ofthe population of reviewers requires or permits. Furthermore, althoughit is preferable that each secondary file be uniquely linked to a singlereviewer, any known method of establishing the identity of each reviewerassociated with a particular secondary file would achieve the sameresult.

In addition to the rank of the reviewers, distinctions can be made among“lines” of reviewers based upon their relationship to the reviewershierarchically above them. FIG. 4 shows reviewers 202, 204 and 206having been designated by owner 130. As level 1 reviewers 202, 204 and206 designate subordinate reviewers, they become the head of a line ofreviewers, I, II and III respectively. For example, as discussed above,reviewer 202 has designated subordinate reviewers 208, 210 and 212.Reviewer 208 has, in turn, designated subordinate reviewer 220.Reviewers 210 and 212 have similarly designated subordinate reviewers.Every reviewer for which “lineage” can be traced to reviewer 202 belongto the same “line” of reviewers. Similarly, reviewer 204 has designatedsubordinate reviewer 214 who belongs to line II and reviewer 206 hasdesignated reviewers 216 and 218 belonging to line Ill. Hierarchicalsublines exist when a subordinate reviewer designates furthersubordinate reviewers. Therefore, the heads of sub lines A, B and C canbe identified as reviewers 208, 210 and 212 respectively.

The existence of each hierarchical line and subline as well as the placeof a particular reviewer within it can readily be determined byreferring to the reviewers hierarchical identity. For example, theprefix of reviewer 230's hierarchical identity of L1R1 L2R2L3R2identifies each of reviewer 202 (L1R1), 210 (L2R2) and 222 (L3R2) as thehead of progressively subordinate hierarchical lines.

Therefore, the hierarchy established by the sub-distribution of thedocument 122 in FIG. 5 creates relationships among the reviewers thatcan be defined by hierarchical rules. For example, the relationshipbetween reviewer 202 and 208 is similar to that established betweenowner 130 and reviewer 202. Therefore, the review process shown in FIG.3 and described above between owner 130 and Level 1 reviewers 202, 204and 206 is applied in the same manner in FIG. 5 between reviewer 202 andLevel 2 reviewers 208, 210 and 212 with reviewer 202 in the place of theowner.

Thus, as shown in FIG. 5, after step 4 a, the L2 reviewers suggestchanges which are captured in their secondary data files. In the case ofreviewers 208, 210 and 212, secondary data files, uniquely associatedwith hierarchical identifications L1 R1-L2R1, L1 R1-L2R2 and L1 R1-L2R3(FIG. 4) respectively are received by central database 102. The centraldatabase integrates the files and submits the integrated secondary datafile 150 to reviewer 202 who selectively incorporates the changessuggested by reviewers 208, 210 and 212. These changes are incorporatedinto reviewer 202's secondary data file, associated with level and rankL1R1, which is then submitted, with any changes reviewer 202independently suggests, back to central database 102 for return with theother Level 1 reviewers to owner 130.

Therefore, as discussed above, the review process between hierarchicallevels shown in FIG. 5 follows the same process as that set forth inFIG. 3 with the critical exception that only the owner may modify thedocument 122. Although each reviewer who designates reviewers at asubordinate level stands in the same position, hierarchically, overthose reviewers as owner 130 stands over Level 1 reviewers 202, 204 and206, each reviewer may only modify the contents of a secondary data file128 which has no direct effect on the contents of the master data file124. The owner, however, has no hierarchical superior, and therefore isallocated no secondary data file, but instead modifies document 122directly.

FIG. 6 illustrates the multi-level review process illustrated by FIG. 5in greater detail as it may take place in practice. As discussed abovewith respect to FIG. 5, owner 130 has designated by invitation level 1reviewers 202, 204 and 206 and distributed master data file 124 andsecondary data file 128 in steps 1 to 4. Reviewer 202 has similarlyinvited and distributed to level 2 reviewers 208, 210 and 212 in steps 3a to 4 a. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 6, level 1 reviewer 202 and 202'slevel 2 reviewers have received copies of master data file 124. Usingsoftware such as local database or thin client 125, each level 2reviewer 208, 210 and 212 views the contents of master data file 124 andpopulates a unique secondary data file 128 d 128 e and 128 f withsuggested changes respectively without modifying the contents of masterdata file 124 [[this is]] as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 as step 5 a.

In practice, the process of reviewing a document may be completed atdifferent times by different reviewers. For example, a particular level2 reviewer may be waiting for suggested changes from designatedreviewers at level 3, or may be temporarily disconnected from thenetwork which may cause delay in submission of that reviewer's secondarydata file to central database 102. Therefore, although the level 1reviewers such as 202 would ordinarily wait until the review process wascompleted by all of the subordinate reviewers before undertaking his orher own review, a level 1 reviewer may query the central database 102 atany time to initiate step 6 a to view the contents the secondary filescurrently submitted by subordinate reviewers. As shown in FIG. 6, thesecondary data files 128 d and 128 e have been transmitted to thecentral database 102 at a time when reviewer 212 has not yet 10submitted secondary data file 128 f. Thus, integrated secondary file 150would contain only the suggested changes stored in the secondary datafiles 128 d and 128 e. However, when reviewer 212 has finished reviewingdocument 122, reviewer 202 may again query the central database 102,thereby repeating step 6 a. Integrated secondary data file 150 wouldthen contain the suggested changes of all three level 2 reviewers.

Upon querying central Database 102, level 1 reviewer 202 receivesintegrated secondary data file 150 which contains the suggested changescontained in the secondary data files 128 d and 128 e submitted to thecentral database 102 by level 2 reviewers 208 and 210 who have completedtheir review of the contents of master data file 124. In step 5,reviewer 202 views the contents of master data file 124 and thesuggested changes of the level 2 reviewers using software such as localdatabase or thin client 125. The suggested changes in integratedsecondary data file 150 that are accepted by level 1 reviewer 202 aswell as those changes independently suggested by reviewer 202 arecaptured in secondary data file 128 a which is submitted to centraldatabase 102 where it is integrated with the suggested changes of theother level 1 reviewers without modifying the contents of master datafile 124 into integrated secondary data file 140. Owner 130 may then, asshown in step 6, view the integrated secondary data file 140 to modifythe contents of document 122 as discussed above using software such aslocal database or thin client 125.

Thus, whereas FIG. 3 illustrates the document collaboration process ofthe present invention in a single line two-level review, the processideally takes place simultaneously across multiple lines and levels.Therefore, the review process shown in FIG. 5 is a recursive processmanaged by central database 102 and repeated from the bottom of thehierarchy illustrated in FIG. 4 to the owner 130 at the top. However, asillustrated by FIGS. 5 and 6, the multi-level review process at no timemodifies the contents of the master data file. The modification of themaster data file is undertaken only upon final review by owner 130.

Ideally, the review process is structured hierarchically such that thesuggested changes of a particular reviewer are only viewable by thosedesignating reviewers of immediately superior rank and within the sameline. Thus, the suggested changes of third level reviewer 220 as shownin FIG. 4 are viewable only by that reviewer's designating reviewer,second level reviewer 208. Likewise, the suggested changes of secondlevel reviewer 208 are only viewable by first level reviewer 202.

The embodiments of the present invention described above have generallybeen directed to a system for developing and reviewing documents whereineach reviewer at every level has the ability to view the entire documentdistributed for review by a document owner. Although such a system maywork well for document review within a single organization defined asthose connected to the same central database, there may still be caseswhere it would be desirable to invite certain reviewers within anorganization to comment on only part of a document. Furthermore, it ispossible that an owner may wish to send a document for review to anoutside organization and may therefore wish to conceal confidentialinformation while still obtaining meaningful suggestions as tonon-confidential portions of a document.

For example, as shown in FIG. 4, owner 130 may invite a sub-owner 330who may belong to a different organization to review a document.Sub-owner 330 may create an independent collaboration tree 340 withinthe sub-owner's organization using the system of the present inventionand a central database other than central database 102. Therefore,should owner 130 wish to exclude specific portions of document 122, suchportions could be extracted prior to sending the document to sub-owner330 resulting in modified document 122 a which may be submitted inlocked format as master data file 124 a. Thus, after document 122 a isreviewed by sub owner 330 and collaboration tree 340, secondary datafile 328 containing suggested changes is returned to owner 130.

Although submitting modified document 122 a is shown implemented whendocument 122 is sent to an outside organization, similar restrictionsare possible within owner 130's organization, either by creating amodified document such as 122 a or by managing access to document 122 byimplementing access restrictions through central database 102.

Further, the system of the present invention can be utilized to conductdocument review in real-time wherein a group of physically remotereviewers can simultaneously view and comment on a document. In thisembodiment, the suggested changes of invited reviewers at each levelwould be instantaneously viewable to the inviting reviewers above them.

While the preferred embodiments of the invention have been illustratedand described, it will be appreciated that various changes can be madetherein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system for managing revisions to a first electronic document, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: provide a user application to a reviewer of the first electronic document; receive an original version of the first electronic document, wherein the first electronic document is a spreadsheet file, a database file, a word-processing file, or an HTML, file that is locked by the user application so as to prevent editing the first electronic document; receive, via the user application, a second electronic document including one or more revisions to text of the original version of the first electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generate index data linking each of the one or more revisions to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document, integrate the one or more revisions contained in the second electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and display, simultaneously to the reviewer, redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document and the second electronic document, wherein each redline difference is indexed, based on the index data, to the at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 2. The system of claim 1, wherein an index of revisions based on the index data is displayed to the reviewer adjacent to a display of the first electronic document.
 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first electronic document is a word-processing file or an HTML file.
 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the second electronic document contains only the one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, via the user application, a third electronic document including a second set of one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generate index data linking each revision of the second set of one or more revisions in the third electronic document to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; integrate the second set of one or more revisions contained in the third electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and display, simultaneously to the reviewer, redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document, the second electronic document, and the third electronic document.
 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, via the user application, a fourth electronic document including a set of one or more revisions to text of the third electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generate index data linking each revision of the set of one or more revisions in the fourth electronic document to at least one location within the text of the third electronic document; and integrate the set of one or more revisions contained in the fourth electronic document within the text of the third electronic document prior to the user application receiving the third electronic document.
 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the third electronic document is generated by a first user and the fourth electronic document is generated by a second user, and the second user is a subordinate user to the first user.
 8. A computer-implemented method for managing revisions to a first electronic document, comprising: providing a user application to a reviewer of the first electronic document; receiving an original version of the first electronic document, wherein the first electronic document is a spreadsheet file, a database file, a word-processing file, or an HTML, file that is locked by the user application so as to prevent editing the first electronic document; receiving, via the user application, a second electronic document including one or more revisions to text of the original version of the electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generating index data linking each of the one or more revisions to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; integrating the one or more revisions contained in the second electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and displaying, simultaneously to the reviewer, redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document and the second electronic document, wherein each redline difference is indexed, based on the index data, to the at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein an index of revisions based on the index data is displayed to the reviewer adjacent to a display of the first electronic document.
 10. The method of claim 8, wherein the first electronic document is a word-processing file or an HTML file.
 11. The system of claim 8, wherein the second electronic document contains only the one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 12. The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, via the user application, a third electronic document including a second set of one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generating index data linking each revision of the second set of one or more revisions in the third electronic document to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; integrating the second set of one or more revisions contained in the third electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and displaying, simultaneously to the reviewer, redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document, the second electronic document, and the third electronic document.
 13. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that cause an internet-connected server processor to perform operations comprising: providing a user application to a reviewer of a first electronic document; receiving an original version of the first electronic document, wherein the first electronic document is a spreadsheet file, a database file, a word-processing file, or an HTML file that is locked by the user application so as to prevent editing the first electronic document; receiving, via the user application, a second electronic document including one or more revisions to text of the original version of the first electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generating index data linking each of the one or more revisions to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; integrating the one or more revisions contained in the second electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and displaying, to the reviewer, one or more redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document and the second electronic document, wherein each redline difference is indexed, based on the index data, to the at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein an index of revisions based on the index data is displayed to the reviewer adjacent to a display of the first electronic document.
 15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the first electronic document is a word-processing file or an HTML file.
 16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the second electronic document contains only the one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document.
 17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via the user application, a third electronic document including a second set of one or more revisions to the text of the original version of the first electronic document without including unrevised text of the original version of the first electronic document; generating index data linking each revision of the second set of one or more revisions in the third electronic document to at least one location within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; integrating the second set of one or more revisions contained in the third electronic document within the text of the original version of the first electronic document; and displaying, simultaneously to the reviewer, redline differences between the original version of the first electronic document, the second electronic document, and the third electronic document. 